What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

RB Dalvin Cook, DAL (2 Viewers)

Mike Francesa wad talking about Cook the other day and he was saying that all the NFL insiders and scouts he knows or speaks to, all compare Cook to Marshall Faulk..dont kill the messenger her Im just relaying info...but Minnesota lacks a rb without Peterson.Cook will be the opening day starter..he seems like a solid 3-down back..we will see how it plays out I guess, just wanted to share the comparisons Ive heard.obviously lofty but Cook musy be doing something right.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Vikings plan to establish a "committee" at running back during training camp.
While Dalvin Cook is the favorite for touches, the Vikings aren't paying Latavius Murray over $4 million this year to ride the bench. Murray will at very least have a change-up and short-yardage role, while Jerick McKinnon remains the best receiver of the group. Among rookies, Leonard Fournette, Christian McCaffrey, and Joe Mixon are all better re-draft fantasy bets than Cook.

 
 
Source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune 
May 10 - 9:58 PM
Click to expand...

 
@Biabreakable You better draft Cook because I just took him at a cool 1.06 in my rookie draft. If we are driving this train and it goes straight off the cliff I want to know you're crashing with me :D  

 
Borden said:
@Biabreakable You better draft Cook because I just took him at a cool 1.06 in my rookie draft. If we are driving this train and it goes straight off the cliff I want to know you're crashing with me :D  
Click to expand...
It is going to be very hard for me to pass on Cook. I have been tweaking my rankings a bit. I would draft Corey Davis before Cook but I think I am taking Cook before any other rookie RB if I can. Even though there are logical reasons to draft Fournette or McCaffrey ahead of him. As usual I always swing back towards pre NFL draft perspectives on things. I like rankings from February more than April.

I am still a bit stunned he went to my favorite team. That forces me into a more neutral position on players actually. I know how bad the Vikings offensive line has been.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At 1.05 in my non-ppr draft, he went one pick before. I "ended up" with McCaffrey and was disappointed.  I don't know what happened at the Combine but this kid is going to be a monster in the NFL.

 
Does someone have some good video clips of him making sudden moves in a crowded area in college?  I'm in a position to draft him and I'm trying to talk myself into it, but when I watch the highlights most that I can find are massive running lanes where his moves are either so far downfield that a subtle little cut makes a huge difference or it is some bottom tier school with defenders who have him wrapped up just falling off.

 
He's got great vision. According to ESPN Sport Science it's quicker than almost any RB they tested. Long term I think he'll be good, but I doubt he puts up more than 800 yards this year. Zimmer doesn't give rookie skill position players a chance.

 
NFLN: How Will The Vikings Backfield Play Out?

So they have Murray getting 8 touches per game. (128 over 16)

Dalvin Cook 17 touches a game. (272 over 16)

Jerrick McKinnon 14 touches a game.(224 over 16)

That is 624 touches for the RB leaving about 400 plays for the receivers and TE.

What is more confounding is that Murray is called a 1b out of these 3 players yet he gets fewer touches than the other two RB. Wouldn't that at least make him 1c if not three?

While I would love for this to be correct (the Vikings will win a lot of games if they were able to run the ball this much) it doesn't really add up does it? 

The Vikings have averaged 422 rushing attempts over the last 3 seasons (-37 Qb runs) and all RB have averaged 80 receptions (including FB)

So the RB of the Vikings have averaged 465 touches over the last 3 seasons. The projected touches for the RBs are too high. I think most of that is McKinnon being allocated too many touches. I am not sure he will see the ball any more than Murray.

17 per game for Cook seems feasible though as he may have two or three receptions per game, his rushing attempts wouldn't need to be that high to reach 17 per game if that happens. He is a better receiver than McKinnon,

 
Biabreakable said:
NFLN: How Will The Vikings Backfield Play Out?

So they have Murray getting 8 touches per game. (128 over 16)

Dalvin Cook 17 touches a game. (272 over 16)

Jerrick McKinnon 14 touches a game.(224 over 16)

That is 624 touches for the RB leaving about 400 plays for the receivers and TE.

What is more confounding is that Murray is called a 1b out of these 3 players yet he gets fewer touches than the other two RB. Wouldn't that at least make him 1c if not three?

While I would love for this to be correct (the Vikings will win a lot of games if they were able to run the ball this much) it doesn't really add up does it? 

The Vikings have averaged 422 rushing attempts over the last 3 seasons (-37 Qb runs) and all RB have averaged 80 receptions (including FB)

So the RB of the Vikings have averaged 465 touches over the last 3 seasons. The projected touches for the RBs are too high. I think most of that is McKinnon being allocated too many touches. I am not sure he will see the ball any more than Murray.

17 per game for Cook seems feasible though as he may have two or three receptions per game, his rushing attempts wouldn't need to be that high to reach 17 per game if that happens. He is a better receiver than McKinnon,
Click to expand...
That show was unwatchable and it was a contradictory train-wreck at best. I wouldn't put any stock in what they said on that show.

Tex

 
BigTex said:
That show was unwatchable and it was a contradictory train-wreck at best. I wouldn't put any stock in what they said on that show.

Tex
Click to expand...
I don't.

We are in a dead news cycle though. Lots of rehashed drek for the most part, this was at least looking forward.

 
Vikings OC Pat Shurmur has been impressed with Dalvin Cook.



"He certainly caught our eye," Shurmur said. "Very instinctive runner. He’s making good progress." The Vikings also talked up Cook’s pass blocking, a great sign for his chances of getting on the field early. Cook's rookie status has him running with the second team at OTAs, but he's the favorite to lead the Vikings in touches.

 
 
Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press 
May 26 - 7:31 PM
Click to expand...
 
Biabreakable said:
It is going to be very hard for me to pass on Cook. I have been tweaking my rankings a bit. I would draft Corey Williams before Cook but I think I am taking Cook before any other rookie RB if I can. Even though there are logical reasons to draft Fournette or McCaffrey ahead of him. As usual I always swing back towards pre NFL draft perspectives on things. I like rankings from February more than April.

I am still a bit stunned he went to my favorite team. That forces me into a more neutral position on players actually. I know how bad the Vikings offensive line has been.
Click to expand...
I was stunned when Zeke (my favorite college player who I had drafted as my Devy player) went to the Cowboys (my favorite team) so I know how you are feeling. 

;)

Tex

 
His cuts at full speed are what stand out to me vs the other backs in this class. Nobody else has that ability to move through traffic without slowing down. Very Lesean McCoy like. 

 
BigTex said:
I was stunned when Zeke (my favorite college player who I had drafted as my Devy player) went to the Cowboys (my favorite team) so I know how you are feeling. 

;)

Tex
Click to expand...
Happened to me with Adrian Peterson before.  :)

 
bostonfred said:
When you put it that way it doesn't sound like you're that high on him at all 
Click to expand...
Yeah I meant Corey Davis obviously.

Dalvin Cook my favorite RB from this draft class and was before the NFL draft.. Logic and reason has me rank Davis, Fournette and McCaffrey ahead of him, mostly based on draft position.

The difference in WR careers compared to RB careers still causes me to draft Davis ahead of Cook, but not Fournette or McCaffrey.

 
Biabreakable said:
The Film Room Ep. 21: Dalvin Cook Scouting Report
Click to expand...
He makes some really lofty comparisons for cooks and his ability to outflank the defense. Marshall Faulk, Tomlinson, Arian foster, compares his  ability to get open in space to Jamaal Charles and Tevin Coleman, and considers him a better rb prospect than Gurley,  Elliott, and Melvin Gordon.  

Here's the problem

Marshall Faulk 4.35

Jamaal Charles 4.36

Tevin Coleman 4.39 pro day

Tomlinson 4.46

Elliott 4.47

Cook 4.49

Melvin Gordon 4.52

Arian foster 4.68

Gurley did not run

So he's comparing cook to some of the best players of all time and anointing him and fournette the best prospects in the last few years, which is fine.  4.49 isn't a death knell for a running back, but it's among the slowest of the guys he compares cook to.  And then he also points out that cook can't pass block and doesn't run with power.  

I do agree that he's got great vision and elusiveness, and that he catches the ball well.  But so did all the guys he mentioned, and they all ran with more power than cook does.

I think cook is a fine player but the comparisons are way too rich.  I think he could be Devonta Freeman (4.58) - who I like a lot - or a slower Reggie Bush (4.33).  And if they use him right he could put up top 5 numbers. But i don't see Tomlinson/Faulk numbers at all, and if the Vikings do end up pulling him out on the goal line it would take a lot of shine off his apple. 

 
bostonfred said:
He makes some really lofty comparisons for cooks and his ability to outflank the defense. Marshall Faulk, Tomlinson, Arian foster, compares his  ability to get open in space to Jamaal Charles and Tevin Coleman, and considers him a better rb prospect than Gurley,  Elliott, and Melvin Gordon.  

Here's the problem

Marshall Faulk 4.35

Jamaal Charles 4.36

Tevin Coleman 4.39 pro day

Tomlinson 4.46

Elliott 4.47

Cook 4.49

Melvin Gordon 4.52

Arian foster 4.68

Gurley did not run

So he's comparing cook to some of the best players of all time and anointing him and fournette the best prospects in the last few years, which is fine.  4.49 isn't a death knell for a running back, but it's among the slowest of the guys he compares cook to.  And then he also points out that cook can't pass block and doesn't run with power.  

I do agree that he's got great vision and elusiveness, and that he catches the ball well.  But so did all the guys he mentioned, and they all ran with more power than cook does.

I think cook is a fine player but the comparisons are way too rich.  I think he could be Devonta Freeman (4.58) - who I like a lot - or a slower Reggie Bush (4.33).  And if they use him right he could put up top 5 numbers. But i don't see Tomlinson/Faulk numbers at all, and if the Vikings do end up pulling him out on the goal line it would take a lot of shine off his apple. 
Click to expand...
A 40 time has nothing to do with what you're able to do in space. I would think that has more to do with reaction and instinct not what someone runs in a straight line.

The ability to outflank a defender has nothing to do with a 40 time either so I'm not getting why you're comparing 40 times when they have nothing to to with the traits that are mentioned in the scouting video.

Tex

 
bostonfred said:
So he's comparing cook to some of the best players of all time and anointing him and fournette the best prospects in the last few years, which is fine.  4.49 isn't a death knell for a running back, but it's among the slowest of the guys he compares cook to.  And then he also points out that cook can't pass block and doesn't run with power.  

I do agree that he's got great vision and elusiveness, and that he catches the ball well.  But so did all the guys he mentioned, and they all ran with more power than cook does.

I think cook is a fine player but the comparisons are way too rich.  I think he could be Devonta Freeman (4.58) - who I like a lot - or a slower Reggie Bush (4.33).
Click to expand...
A lot of this part of your post is related to Cook's speed. There is a link earlier in the thread that shows that Cook is one of the fastest RBs in pads, which seems to render his track time meaningless.

ETA: Here is the post: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/740898-dynasty-redraft-rb-dalvin-cook-vikings/?do=findComment&comment=20095164. Fastest RB in pads in the past 5 years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable said:
Xue what do you think about this data?

Seems like this could be an excellent resource for player athletic evaluation to supplement the combine metrics and the measurements you do with counting film frames. 
Click to expand...
Sports Science compared Cook’s athletic skill set to former FSU RB Devonta Freeman, who has posted back-to-back 1,000-yard seasons with the Atlanta Falcons.

Coach Jimbo Fisher --who relies on GPS tracking to measure the max speed threshold of players on his team -- previously said Cook was FSU's fastest player with pads on, further supporting the Sports Science data that shows Cook is a better player than he is a tester.

Tex

 
bostonfred said:
He makes some really lofty comparisons for cooks and his ability to outflank the defense. Marshall Faulk, Tomlinson, Arian foster, compares his  ability to get open in space to Jamaal Charles and Tevin Coleman, and considers him a better rb prospect than Gurley,  Elliott, and Melvin Gordon.  

Here's the problem

Marshall Faulk 4.35

Jamaal Charles 4.36

Tevin Coleman 4.39 pro day

Tomlinson 4.46

Elliott 4.47

Cook 4.49

Melvin Gordon 4.52

Arian foster 4.68

Gurley did not run

So he's comparing cook to some of the best players of all time and anointing him and fournette the best prospects in the last few years, which is fine.  4.49 isn't a death knell for a running back, but it's among the slowest of the guys he compares cook to.  And then he also points out that cook can't pass block and doesn't run with power.  

I do agree that he's got great vision and elusiveness, and that he catches the ball well.  But so did all the guys he mentioned, and they all ran with more power than cook does.

I think cook is a fine player but the comparisons are way too rich.  I think he could be Devonta Freeman (4.58) - who I like a lot - or a slower Reggie Bush (4.33).  And if they use him right he could put up top 5 numbers. But i don't see Tomlinson/Faulk numbers at all, and if the Vikings do end up pulling him out on the goal line it would take a lot of shine off his apple. 
Click to expand...
I believe he was referencing Cooks ability as a receiver with those comments, not as an overall prospect. Although he does consider Cook to on a similar level of prospect as Fournette, Elliot, Gurley ect. as far as overall talent. I pretty much agree with this. Your talk about 40 yard dash times seems irrelevant to me. Cook is fast enough.

As far as the comparisons being too flattering, I agree with that. Cook hasn't done anything at the pro level yet. At least this guy is consistently hyperbolic about these comparisons though. I mean he claims Fournette to be as or more powerful that Earl Campbell, the quintessential example of a power RB. I disagree with this comparison, it is being too kind to the rookie players. At the same time he is using these players as examples of archetypes of skills. Earl Campbell respected as the best power RB in the NFL although others might argue Jim Brown. I think Jim Brown was more complete RB than Campbell, which is part of why Campbell's power stands out more than his other skills.

I think it does an effective job of communicating his observations of the players skills, though agree taking those comparisons literally is being to generous to the rookie prospects.

If I were to rate all players in the category of power from 1-10, Campbell would be my 10 example that other players might be close to (rated a 9 or maybe something like 9.5 if using decimal places) but I would never give any rookie prospect a 10 in that category. In a similar way Barry Sanders would be a 10 in the category of elusiveness, and all other players would necessarily be lower than that.

I think he does a good job with his evaluation, which he is also trying to make entertaining, not just informative. At the same time I agree with your point about it being a bit over the top.

 
Just Win Baby said:
A lot of this part of your post is related to Cook's speed. There is a link earlier in the thread that shows that Cook is one of the fastest RBs in pads, which seems to render his track time meaningless.

ETA: Here is the post: https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/740898-dynasty-redraft-rb-dalvin-cook-vikings/?do=findComment&comment=20095164. Fastest RB in pads in the past 5 years.
Click to expand...
Is there a complete list of the Sports Science drill results available anywhere? Basically I just want a big table of numbers, of the sort that you can find all over the place with Combine results.

I want this, first, because it's hard to tell how well a player did at the Sports Science drills if all I see are a couple one-off comparisons (which usually seem to have been selected to try to make the player look good). I want to see how he did at all the drills, and how other players compare, in order to interpret his results. And second, I don't know how much stock to put into the various drills that they do at Sports Science, and I would have a better sense of what to make of a particular drill if I could look at the results of all the players who did it.

On the whole, I'm not sure what to make of Sports Science. It's possible that they've come up with a better set of drills than the ones at the Combine, which are more closely related to what players do on the field and thus more predictive of NFL success. Or it's possible that their drills are kind of gimmicky, poorly standardized and prone to extremely noisy results (due to the nature/complexity of the drill, the players being less familiar with the drills and therefore not having good technique or rhythm, the players not all giving max effort because it's a TV show and not part of their job interview, etc.). Or it's possible that it's a mix of these - maybe some of their drills are better than the Combine drills and others are gimmicky & worse, or maybe getting top results on some of their drills is a very good sign (because it requires a rare and NFL-relevant skillset) but getting bad results on the same drill is not that informative (because it could be due to various kinds of noise like lack of familiarity with the drill). Having all the actual results might allow me to sort through these possibilities.

 
ZWK said:
Is there a complete list of the Sports Science drill results available anywhere? Basically I just want a big table of numbers, of the sort that you can find all over the place with Combine results.

I want this, first, because it's hard to tell how well a player did at the Sports Science drills if all I see are a couple one-off comparisons (which usually seem to have been selected to try to make the player look good). I want to see how he did at all the drills, and how other players compare, in order to interpret his results. And second, I don't know how much stock to put into the various drills that they do at Sports Science, and I would have a better sense of what to make of a particular drill if I could look at the results of all the players who did it.

On the whole, I'm not sure what to make of Sports Science. It's possible that they've come up with a better set of drills than the ones at the Combine, which are more closely related to what players do on the field and thus more predictive of NFL success. Or it's possible that their drills are kind of gimmicky, poorly standardized and prone to extremely noisy results (due to the nature/complexity of the drill, the players being less familiar with the drills and therefore not having good technique or rhythm, the players not all giving max effort because it's a TV show and not part of their job interview, etc.). Or it's possible that it's a mix of these - maybe some of their drills are better than the Combine drills and others are gimmicky & worse, or maybe getting top results on some of their drills is a very good sign (because it requires a rare and NFL-relevant skillset) but getting bad results on the same drill is not that informative (because it could be due to various kinds of noise like lack of familiarity with the drill). Having all the actual results might allow me to sort through these possibilities.
Click to expand...
Not aware of a comprehensive list anywhere and agree with your reservations about their drills and data. However, in this case, it seems to support what was visible on film, so I am inclined to believe that Cook's 40 time is not indicative of a legitimate concern for him.

 
@ZWK    I agree with your comments and questions regarding the ESPN sport science data. We need a complete data set before those numbers have any context.

If this is something that became available, perhaps it would improve on combine metric data if certain drills could be aligned. Until there is a more robust source of the data available, it will always be an interesting information but not something that could be turned into an actionable asset.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In 10 years I can see the Combine using these types of technology. The Combine is so far behind the times its ridiculous.

Tex

 
BigTex said:
In 10 years I can see the Combine using these types of technology. The Combine is so far behind the times its ridiculous.

Tex
Click to expand...
The combine is absolutely pointless and serves the league no value but for a glorified TV show of sports prospects in tights. 

 
Biabreakable said:
 Your talk about 40 yard dash times seems irrelevant to me. Cook is fast enough.
Click to expand...


BigTex said:
The ability to outflank a defender has nothing to do with a 40 time
Click to expand...
I get that you guys have all decided he's fast enough,  but it is a little relevant 

I care about simple things.  Can he run inside, outside, catch and score touchdowns.  

Let's start with run inside.  The answer is yes, although with elusiveness, not power. That's fine because he's got great  vision, swivel, stop start and balance. He's got almost all the buttons on the joystick. 

Can he run outside.  This one should be the slam dunk for his style of back, but I'm not sure how well he will get the edge against NFL defenses.  That's where his speed is very relevant, because if he's not much faster than the linebackers, they can crowd the middle to take away his elusiveness, and his pass blocking deficiencies create other problems...  For now I'll give it a yes, but if he struggles with this it will make a huge difference in how teams defend him. 

Will he score touchdowns.  I have this one as a no.  He's probably not going to be a goal line guy in the NFL and almost definitely not as a rookie.  They just paid good money to bring in Murray for power running.  He may still contribute from time to time - but his weaknesses are pretty much the worst weaknesses for a running back to have on the goal line - struggling at power running and pass blocking. They might as well line him up at the slot.  He's also not likely to break a lot of long touchdowns, which is why his speed is again relevant.   And the Vikings aren't and aren't trying to be a prolific, up tempo offense that will get 20 plus rushing touchdowns like the falcons. He's going to get a smaller piece of a smaller pie than Freeman. 

But then there's his receiving ability.  And that's where I think he absolutely shines.  But again, his speed and pass blocking are relevant to the types of plays where they'll throw to him and their success with it.  I'd expect him to be a more reliable target on third and short than third and long, and to get more receiving opportunities on early downs than late. 

So the Freeman comp is a good one - with a couple exceptions.  I think he may share carries like freeman,  but in a worse offense.  I think he'll get the receiving volume and be a ppr machine,  but I don't expect huge yards per catch numbers. I don't think he'll consistently get double digit touchdowns like Freeman. And I also worry about the character concerns.   So I'd rather have freeman by a good deal, but I still see cook as a potential ppr rb1.

If he can get the corner,  i can see him competing for the league lead in receptions and top ten total yards, but I don't see him as a consistent enough touchdown score to be that truly elite super stud.  That's what kamara owners are hoping he can become.

If his speed is an issue, though, it would impact everything about his game and could devastate his fantasy value. 

I say this as someone who owns no shares yet but is interested in investing. 

 
Agree with almost everything else @Biabreakable said though - and I agree he's a really good looking prospect with a high ceiling,  I just dont want to overlook his deficiencies and over draft him. 

 
bostonfred said:
I get that you guys have all decided he's fast enough,  but it is a little relevant 

I care about simple things.  Can he run inside, outside, catch and score touchdowns.  

Let's start with run inside.  The answer is yes, although with elusiveness, not power. That's fine because he's got great  vision, swivel, stop start and balance. He's got almost all the buttons on the joystick. 

Can he run outside.  This one should be the slam dunk for his style of back, but I'm not sure how well he will get the edge against NFL defenses.  That's where his speed is very relevant, because if he's not much faster than the linebackers, they can crowd the middle to take away his elusiveness, and his pass blocking deficiencies create other problems...  For now I'll give it a yes, but if he struggles with this it will make a huge difference in how teams defend him. 

Will he score touchdowns.  I have this one as a no.  He's probably not going to be a goal line guy in the NFL and almost definitely not as a rookie.  They just paid good money to bring in Murray for power running.  He may still contribute from time to time - but his weaknesses are pretty much the worst weaknesses for a running back to have on the goal line - struggling at power running and pass blocking. They might as well line him up at the slot.  He's also not likely to break a lot of long touchdowns, which is why his speed is again relevant.   And the Vikings aren't and aren't trying to be a prolific, up tempo offense that will get 20 plus rushing touchdowns like the falcons. He's going to get a smaller piece of a smaller pie than Freeman. 

But then there's his receiving ability.  And that's where I think he absolutely shines.  But again, his speed and pass blocking are relevant to the types of plays where they'll throw to him and their success with it.  I'd expect him to be a more reliable target on third and short than third and long, and to get more receiving opportunities on early downs than late. 

So the Freeman comp is a good one - with a couple exceptions.  I think he may share carries like freeman,  but in a worse offense.  I think he'll get the receiving volume and be a ppr machine,  but I don't expect huge yards per catch numbers. I don't think he'll consistently get double digit touchdowns like Freeman. And I also worry about the character concerns.   So I'd rather have freeman by a good deal, but I still see cook as a potential ppr rb1.

If he can get the corner,  i can see him competing for the league lead in receptions and top ten total yards, but I don't see him as a consistent enough touchdown score to be that truly elite super stud.  That's what kamara owners are hoping he can become.

If his speed is an issue, though, it would impact everything about his game and could devastate his fantasy value. 

I say this as someone who owns no shares yet but is interested in investing. 
Click to expand...
You're spot on with a lot of this which I completely understand.

Tex

 
Biabreakable said:
@ZWK    I agree with your comments and questions regarding the ESPN sport science data. We need a complete data set before those numbers have any context.

If this is something that became available, perhaps it would improve on combine metric data if certain drills could be aligned. Until there is a more robust source of the data available, it will always be an interesting information but not something that could be turned into an actionable asset.
Click to expand...
I've sent Dr. Bir  an email about getting the data from her evaluations.

We'll see what she says I will let you guys know.

I'd like to compare the data relevant to college and NFL performance.

Tex

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

skol asylum
RB-RB-RB strategery
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
ponchsox
ponchsox
Yogibear
Best Free Agents Still Available for 2024
Replies
10
Views
2K
Yogibear
Yogibear
RaidersAreOne
Players to avoid drafting
2
Replies
68
Views
7K
TheDirtyWord
TheDirtyWord

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top